I’ve been a visiting lecturer at Warwick University since 2017, teaching on the Master degree course in Creative and Media Enterprises. The module I teach is ‘Managing Intellectual Property’ – https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/scapvc/ccmps/applying/taught/creative
I teach a session on IP and Music, and another on IP and Social Policy. Each topic is taught through a half-day in person seminar Part of the session is spent explaining the issues to ensure the group has good foundational knowledge of the topic, before spending the remainder of the time debating the implications and more controversial aspects of the subject matter. The music session is a deep dive into the arguments from various stakeholders around the music economy around allocation of revenues. It’s primarily an economic debate, where the economics are firmly grounded in IP law. The IP and Social Policy session takes me well outside my comfort zone, and I always look forward to it each year.
Engaging with students during these sessions is always rewarding—they often represent fresh perspectives distinct from those I encounter in professional contexts. This interaction not only sparks thought-provoking debates but also tests my own understanding. When students ask about the application of theoretical concepts—such as how specific rights operate in unfamiliar scenarios—it’s a powerful reminder that how you explain something in a way that is truly understandable is often the best gauge of how you understand the same thing yourself. This applies as much to things you’re dealing with in daily professional life just as much as it does to less familiar areas. It’s always very insightful to apply academic theory and historical practice to new and often unexpected situations, in the context of a face to face, real time real life debate.
This year’s session on IP and Policy explored IP through a societal lens, moving beyond purely economic dimensions. We considered the perspectives of non-rights holders, such as the public, policymakers, and ‘non-professional’ creators of works protected by copyright but for whom the benefits of protection may be obscure or irrelevant.
For example, we looked at the fashion industry, where trademarks and design rights can protect certain aspects, but individual apparel designs are often excluded. Despite this apparent gap in protection, the fashion industry thrives. We discussed why this might be, what differentiates it from other creative sectors, and how its industrial model supports innovation and commerce despite these unique challenges.
We began the session with an overview of copyright’s origins and its function as a mechanism for recognising and rewarding human creativity. Historically, as copyright has evolved in tandem with technological advances, balancing the protection of creators’ rights with public access to cultural goods and services has created a variety of outcomes. In some instances it is clear that individual creators are beneficiaries of protection. Over the course of history it has been institutions that have benefitted from protection, in which case the positive effects of intellectual property protection for individuals is less clear. This introduces ethical and socio-political aspects of the role and purpose of intellectual property law in society.
The students contributed their own interpretations of this balance, drawing on varied backgrounds and industries, which enriched our discussion of IP’s societal role.
We explored a timeline of copyright development, from its roots in manuscript copying to the Statute of Anne and the international conventions of the 20th century. Students noted how each wave of technological innovation—from printing presses to AI—prompted lawmakers to reconsider and adapt copyright frameworks, often struggling to keep pace with rapid societal change.
We examined various conflicting views on IP: is it an individual right, a common good, or a corporate investment? The students provided thought-provoking examples, challenging these frameworks by highlighting modern conflicts, such as those seen in the digital and technology sectors. This dialogue underscored the dynamic and sometimes contradictory nature of IP policy.
The discussion moved to the concept of ‘public domain’, a key area where copyright intersects with access. I introduced the complexities of how works enter the public domain, and students explored examples of how such resources have been used, reused, and contested. We debated whether public domain content truly serves as a shared cultural resource or if it risks exploitation by commercial interests. We took the case of Albert Korda v Smirnoff as a case study illustrating some of the key considerations in the tussle between technical IP protection and the public domain, and more ethical questions around discrepancies between author’s intention and corporate economics.
The academic James Boyle’s metaphor of barbed wire served as a starting point for a discussion on balancing protection with openness in copyright policy. The students debated the risks of overprotecting IP, particularly in sectors like technology and culture, where shared innovation can drive progress. Their contributions highlighted the fine line policymakers must walk between fostering creativity and preserving fair access.
Technological innovation remains a key disruptor in IP policy. I outlined how it creates new revenue streams for creators but also raises questions about public access. Students brought up the rise of generative AI, with some arguing that it democratizes creativity while others expressed concerns about the ethical and financial implications for human creators.
Copyright’s role as an economic tool was a recurring theme. We contrasted it with subsidies as mechanisms for supporting creative work. I explained how the concept of copyright can be seen as granting a temporary monopoly to creators, while subsidies provide direct financial support. Students explored these approaches’ relative strengths and weaknesses, especially in addressing perceived market failures in the creative industries.
Finally, we explored the practical limitations of copyright law. While copyright provides a legal framework for monetising creative work, its economic outcomes are often dictated by market forces. The students debated how bargaining power shapes these dynamics, raising questions about fairness and equity for less-established creators in the global creative economy.
Discussion topic 1: Subsidy and Austrian Opera
As part of the debate on subsidies as a model for supporting the arts, we used Austrian opera as a case study. I explained that public funding for the arts can deliver cultural benefits, but the question of allocation of such funding is complex. Students debated: Who should decide where the money goes? What happens if taxpayers disagree with how their money is spent? These questions underscored the broader tension between collective cultural enrichment, economics and individual autonomy.
Discussion topic 2: News Media in India
Moving to the nuanced question of social versus institutional benefits of IP protection, we examined journalism in India. News content in particular is technically rights-protected but is often available through platforms that fail to safeguard integrity and authenticity. Students highlighted the challenge posed by unregulated social media, where millions consume politically or commercially influenced content outside traditional news outlets. This discussion illuminated the limits of copyright in ensuring trustworthiness and reliability in an era dominated by digital platforms.
Conclusions
We concluded by reflecting on how IP policy must evolve to address the competing demands of creators, corporations, and the public. The students’ ideas and insights demonstrated the value of seeing the issues from a variety of different perspectives, not least generational.
These sessions are a constant reminder that it is essential to test the context of IP and policy against contemporary factors. It’s often said that the law lags behind technology, the same question arises for creative industries: who is shaping and who is following trends in areas such as audiovisual content, music, and fashion? We should always question the legal and economic structures to determine whether they truly foster innovation, expression, and creativity. If they have successfully done so in the past, can they continue to do so amidst rapid technological advancements in both the creation and consumption of creative works?
Engaging with a wide range of voices and diverse perspectives helps remind us all that IP policy must evolve in step with these changes, enabling it to remain a catalyst for growth and innovation in tandem with complex societal dynamics. My thanks as ever to course convenors Associate Professor and Senior Tutor Ruth Leary and Assistant Professor in Creative Industries Dr Vishalakshi Roy for the invitation to lead these sessions.
Both sessions are accompanied by PPT slides. If you’re interested in reviewing them or using them as a basis for your own exploration of these topics, please let me know.